The spoiler effect and restrictive ballot-access laws are often cited as reasons why socialists in the US must run electoral campaigns in Democratic primaries. But neither explanation really holds up.
Loved this debunking of the spoiler effect and ballot access arguments! If you are down to start a party using DSA as a vehicle, I’d love to hear how your envisioned party-building strategy would differentiate from the WFP, Green Party, or any existing third party strategies.
It makes an interesting argument that DSA doesn’t have to stick all its eggs in one political basket (especially in solidly Democratic districts. But I am still not convinced. Our 2 party system does not allow for democratic choices and DSA would get more trounced than ever. Of course with AIPAC spending tons of millions of dollars to defeat the Sqiuad and other progressives
DSA has some hard choices to make. We are playing defense and we had better play it well. We are not yet strong enough to play offense.
You left out one important argument. The Democratic Party doesn’t actually stand for anything so why the hell not become a part of it and bring some meaning to its baleful existence?
That's all well and good, but the Democrat party clearly is aligned with the interests of capital. They aren't principled on lots of the issues that we talk about most in US politics, but they are not ideologically neutral.
Look I’m really a not looking to pick a fight with you. There is truth in what you have said. Democrats are not ideologically neutral, but what I would like to suggest to you is that they are so by default as much as for any real ideological commitment to the insanity that is capitalism. They are above all else shallow and opportunistic. What I’d propose as a straw man is there are a whole range arguments that the left could make to the public which highlight the abusiveness of our current system that are not framed in class struggle rhetoric but nevertheless expose the broken power dynamics. When I spend two hours on the phone to a bank or an insurance company because they have understaffed and undertrained their support system, I’m working for them for free and they are pocketing the difference. Every adult in America has that experience every month if not more frequently. Use that and a lot of similar arguments out of everyday people’s everyday experience to move the needle. The Democratic Party is not an ideological monolith. It is adrift and feckless and a strong hand could guide it to better days.
What I would like to propose is a dual-surrogacy; use all ballot lines available, not just the Dems, and put special emphasis on independents and GPUS (because they are socialist and have widespread ballot access.)
So for example, in a campaign where a DSA candidate takes on an incumbent in a Dem primary, we should hedge our bets and run an independent or 3rd party candidates in the same race, in open collaboration. If the Dem-DSA candidate wins the D primary, the Green-Rainbow/Independent/other 3rd party DSA candidate withdraws and endorses. If the Dem-DSA candidate loses, then likewise they withdraw and endorses the independent DSAer
Your spoiler count is too unlikely. Let's say the GOP gets 40%, then the Dems and the Socialists split the remainder, Dems 35% and Socialists 25%. Or something close to that. Multiple parties require proportional rep and Instant runoff, IRV. If you want them get these reforms first.
Hi Carl, thanks for the comment. You're right that in that scenario where the GOP gets 40% the spoiler effect concern would be serious. However as I mention in the post, there were more than 80 congressional districts in 2022 that were effectively one-party Democratic districts where the Democratic candidate took between 67-100% of the vote. (There were also more than 80 congressional districts in 2022 where that was the case for the GOP.) One-party Democratic districts totaled 89 in 2020, 112 in 2018, and 103 in 2016. Somewhere between 150-180 congressional districts total every year are non-competitive (so between 35-42% of congressional districts). Also, it just so happens that those one-party Democratic districts are concentrated where organizations like DSA are strongest: NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Philly, North New Jersey, Austin, SF, Oakland, Minneapolis, etc. I totally agree with you that competing in the remaining competitive districts without spoiling elections would require electoral reform, but since those districts are mostly where we as DSA are not strong anyway we can tackle that problem in the future and experiment with independent political action in the solidly Democratic districts now.
True, but why not look further ahead and have DSA give great priority to 1. Pass IRV and proportional districts and 2. Build the strength of 'the Squad plus Bernie,' the actual 'third party' in front of our noses, especially down-ballot, at the base.
However I think the history of countries winning PR shows that it becomes a real viable reform only once there are multiple parties and, as a result of that fact: 1) the dominant parties come to have an interest in passing it because they are themselves afraid of “spoilers” in elections and 2) regular people want it because they want their votes for the new parties to count for something.
Re your second point, more on that in future posts. I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree. I used to agree with that strategy and think independent party building could wait. But now I’ve come to believe that the Democratic Party is changing Bernie and the Squad more than the reverse. I still support Bernie and the Squad, but I think some part of the left needs to build an exit option. I even think that will strengthen Bernie and the Squad’s hand.
If we do our work well with 'The Squad,' the top Dems will offer to bring us to an 'exit option' sooner or later. They may try to purge us, and/or wreck the party. In any case, that will give us the option to gather all the best elements with us, and form a new 'first party.' I call it 'the Whig option, 2.0'
Let me guess--it’s because the Dems have a pre-existing media and legal infrastructure surrounding the Party, and (especially the old guard of) DSA strategists want to hijack it because it’s less effort than creating a new one from scratch; alternatively, if a DSA candidate wins a primary, then their own desire to sharpen their contrast with the GOP candidate is met more than an establishment Dem’s desire.
Loved this debunking of the spoiler effect and ballot access arguments! If you are down to start a party using DSA as a vehicle, I’d love to hear how your envisioned party-building strategy would differentiate from the WFP, Green Party, or any existing third party strategies.
Stay tuned for future posts!
It makes an interesting argument that DSA doesn’t have to stick all its eggs in one political basket (especially in solidly Democratic districts. But I am still not convinced. Our 2 party system does not allow for democratic choices and DSA would get more trounced than ever. Of course with AIPAC spending tons of millions of dollars to defeat the Sqiuad and other progressives
DSA has some hard choices to make. We are playing defense and we had better play it well. We are not yet strong enough to play offense.
You left out one important argument. The Democratic Party doesn’t actually stand for anything so why the hell not become a part of it and bring some meaning to its baleful existence?
That's all well and good, but the Democrat party clearly is aligned with the interests of capital. They aren't principled on lots of the issues that we talk about most in US politics, but they are not ideologically neutral.
Look I’m really a not looking to pick a fight with you. There is truth in what you have said. Democrats are not ideologically neutral, but what I would like to suggest to you is that they are so by default as much as for any real ideological commitment to the insanity that is capitalism. They are above all else shallow and opportunistic. What I’d propose as a straw man is there are a whole range arguments that the left could make to the public which highlight the abusiveness of our current system that are not framed in class struggle rhetoric but nevertheless expose the broken power dynamics. When I spend two hours on the phone to a bank or an insurance company because they have understaffed and undertrained their support system, I’m working for them for free and they are pocketing the difference. Every adult in America has that experience every month if not more frequently. Use that and a lot of similar arguments out of everyday people’s everyday experience to move the needle. The Democratic Party is not an ideological monolith. It is adrift and feckless and a strong hand could guide it to better days.
What I would like to propose is a dual-surrogacy; use all ballot lines available, not just the Dems, and put special emphasis on independents and GPUS (because they are socialist and have widespread ballot access.)
So for example, in a campaign where a DSA candidate takes on an incumbent in a Dem primary, we should hedge our bets and run an independent or 3rd party candidates in the same race, in open collaboration. If the Dem-DSA candidate wins the D primary, the Green-Rainbow/Independent/other 3rd party DSA candidate withdraws and endorses. If the Dem-DSA candidate loses, then likewise they withdraw and endorses the independent DSAer
Your spoiler count is too unlikely. Let's say the GOP gets 40%, then the Dems and the Socialists split the remainder, Dems 35% and Socialists 25%. Or something close to that. Multiple parties require proportional rep and Instant runoff, IRV. If you want them get these reforms first.
Hi Carl, thanks for the comment. You're right that in that scenario where the GOP gets 40% the spoiler effect concern would be serious. However as I mention in the post, there were more than 80 congressional districts in 2022 that were effectively one-party Democratic districts where the Democratic candidate took between 67-100% of the vote. (There were also more than 80 congressional districts in 2022 where that was the case for the GOP.) One-party Democratic districts totaled 89 in 2020, 112 in 2018, and 103 in 2016. Somewhere between 150-180 congressional districts total every year are non-competitive (so between 35-42% of congressional districts). Also, it just so happens that those one-party Democratic districts are concentrated where organizations like DSA are strongest: NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Philly, North New Jersey, Austin, SF, Oakland, Minneapolis, etc. I totally agree with you that competing in the remaining competitive districts without spoiling elections would require electoral reform, but since those districts are mostly where we as DSA are not strong anyway we can tackle that problem in the future and experiment with independent political action in the solidly Democratic districts now.
True, but why not look further ahead and have DSA give great priority to 1. Pass IRV and proportional districts and 2. Build the strength of 'the Squad plus Bernie,' the actual 'third party' in front of our noses, especially down-ballot, at the base.
Re your first point I strongly support PR and the Fair Representation Act. I’ve written about that here: https://jacobin.com/2021/07/democratic-socialism-proportional-representation-multiparty-system-ranked-choice-elections
However I think the history of countries winning PR shows that it becomes a real viable reform only once there are multiple parties and, as a result of that fact: 1) the dominant parties come to have an interest in passing it because they are themselves afraid of “spoilers” in elections and 2) regular people want it because they want their votes for the new parties to count for something.
Re your second point, more on that in future posts. I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree. I used to agree with that strategy and think independent party building could wait. But now I’ve come to believe that the Democratic Party is changing Bernie and the Squad more than the reverse. I still support Bernie and the Squad, but I think some part of the left needs to build an exit option. I even think that will strengthen Bernie and the Squad’s hand.
If we do our work well with 'The Squad,' the top Dems will offer to bring us to an 'exit option' sooner or later. They may try to purge us, and/or wreck the party. In any case, that will give us the option to gather all the best elements with us, and form a new 'first party.' I call it 'the Whig option, 2.0'
Let me guess--it’s because the Dems have a pre-existing media and legal infrastructure surrounding the Party, and (especially the old guard of) DSA strategists want to hijack it because it’s less effort than creating a new one from scratch; alternatively, if a DSA candidate wins a primary, then their own desire to sharpen their contrast with the GOP candidate is met more than an establishment Dem’s desire.